01A24992_r
03-17-2003
Eula F. Blaylock, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Eula F. Blaylock v. United States Postal Service
01A24992
March 17, 2003
.
Eula F. Blaylock<1>,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A24992
Agency No. 1G-756-0031-01
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final agency
decision dated August 26, 2002, finding that it was in compliance with
the terms of the February 1, 2001 settlement agreement into which the
parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b);
and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
The employee [Complainant] will be treated with dignity and respect.
This problem has been corrected [Complainant] will be assigned to
another position under new supervision [a named Supervisor]. EPA/OSHA.
Dallas Bulk Mail Center.
By letter to the agency dated January 10, 2002, complainant alleged that
the agency breached the settlement agreement. Specifically, complainant
alleged without elaboration that agency management has not done what
they promised in accordance with the settlement agreement.
In its August 26, 2002 final decision, the agency found no breach.
The agency acknowledged that complainant was to be assigned to the
EPA/OSHA Dallas Bulk Mail Center in accordance with the instant settlement
agreement. However, the agency stated without elaboration that during a
period when complainant was �on a higher level detail assignment,� the
position that was the subject of the instant settlement agreement was
no longer available �because the office was in compliance.� The agency
determined that complainant is performing the duties of her original
position where the alleged harassment originated but under different
management officials.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a) provides that any settlement
agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties, reached at
any stage of the complaint process, shall be binding on both parties.
The Commission has held that a settlement agreement constitutes a
contract between the employee and the agency, to which ordinary rules
of contract construction apply. See Herrington v. Department of Defense,
EEOC Request No. 05960032 (December 9, 1996). The Commission has further
held that it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract,
not some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's construction.
Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795
(August 23, 1990). In ascertaining the intent of the parties with regard
to the terms of a settlement agreement, the Commission has generally
relied on the plain meaning rule. See Hyon O v. United States Postal
Service, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (December 2, 1991). This rule states
that if the writing appears to be plain and unambiguous on its face,
its meaning must be determined from the four corners of the instrument
without resort to extrinsic evidence of any nature. See Montgomery
Elevator Co. v. Building Eng'g Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).
In the instant case, we find that the agency breached the agreement by
failing to assign complainant to another position under a named Supervisor
in the EPA/OSHA division following the signing of the agreement.
The record contains complainant's letter dated June 7, 2001, to an
agency official. Therein, complainant stated that on May 31, 2001,
two managers informed her that she was returning to the Maintenance
Department because her new modified job (the position that is the subject
of the settlement agreement) under a named Supervisor was considered
�illegal.� Complainant further stated that a few days after the two
manager's visit, her office was cleaned out and she was placed back in
the Maintenance Department.
The record also contains complainant's letter dated June 19, 2001,
to an agency official. Therein, complainant categorized her return
to the Maintenance Department as a 90-day detail. Complainant stated
that when she returns to the Maintenance Department, she would like
a clear understanding of her position, and why she is being �shuffled
everywhere.� Complainant further requested that she be placed back in
the EPA/OSHA office. Complainant reiterated that she was placed back
in the Maintenance Department and that the moving was causing her stress.
Moreover, we find that the agency has presented no evidence, other than
its bare assertions, that due to completion of compliance obligations,
complainant's position identified in the settlement agreement was no
longer available. Therefore, the Commission finds that the agency's
decision that it did not breach the agreement was improper.
To remedy a finding of breach, the Commission may order reinstatement of
the underlying complaint, or enforcement of the agreement's terms. See
29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(c). We note in her letter dated January 10, 2002,
alleging breach of the agreement and separate correspondences, complainant
requested to be assigned in the EPA/OSHA office. We determine that the
appropriate remedy is to order the agency to comply with the settlement
agreement by assigning complainant to a position under the identified
Supervisor in the EPA/OSHA office.
Accordingly, the agency's final decision is REVERSED. This matter is
REMANDED to the agency for further processing in accordance with the
Order below.
ORDER
Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final,
the agency is ORDERED to take the following actions:
The agency shall implement the terms of the settlement agreement by
assigning complainant to a position under the Supervisor identified in
the agreement in the EPA/OSHA office, Dallas Bulk Mail Center.
The agency shall notify complainant that the subject terms of the
settlement agreement are being implemented. A copy of the agency's notice
to complainant must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to
the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's
order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement
of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the
right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's
order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.
See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a civil action on
the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled
"Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408.
A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying
complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)
(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the complainant files a civil action, the
administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation
of material fact or law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed
with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar
days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of
receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests
and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by
mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation
must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only
in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0900)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date
you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in
the complaint the person who is the official agency head or department
head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title.
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court.
"Agency" or "department" means the national organization, and not the
local office, facility or department in which you work. Filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the
action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c).
The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of
the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time
in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action
must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above
("Right to File A Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
March 17, 2003
__________________
Date
1Since this appeal was filed, complainant
changed her last name from �Polk� to �Blaylock.�.